K NARSAMMA Vs. K MATLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Cnief Judge, City Civil Court. Hyderabad in C. M.A. No. 121/1974,

(2.) The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows :-

(3.) The respondent is the landlady. She filed eviction petition K.C No, 2/l972 against the revision petitioner before the Rent Controller. The petitioner filed a counter, but remained ex-parte. Then the Court passed orders of eviction against the revision petitioner on 7-8-1973. In execution of the order of eviction the respondent-landlady obtained possession of the portion of the premises in the occupation of the tenant-revision-petitioner on 5-9-1973. On the next day i.e. on 6-9-1973 the landlady dismantled the structure m the possession of the tenant. Then the tenant filed an application I.A. No.658/1973 on 6-9-1973 for setting aside the ex-parte orders of eviction and it was allowed even though the counsel for the landlady-respondent pleaded that the Additional Rent Controller had no jurisdlction to entertain that application for the reason that there was no premises existing on the land as it was dismantled already. After the application for setting aside the order of eviction was allowed, the tenant filed another application I. A. No. 26/l974 before the Additional Rent Controller for restitution. Again the counsel for the respondent- landlady raised the same objection. But the Additional Rent Controller allowed that petition also and directed the landlady to pay Rs 200/- to the tenant towards damages. Then the respondent-landlady filed appeal R. A. No. 807/1974 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad as against the order of restitution. The learned Chief Judge City Small Causes Court granted interim stay and later vacated. Subsequently the respondent-landlady filed a suit O.S.No. I594/ 1974 against the tenant-revision petitioner in the Court of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration that the orders of the Additional Rent Controller setting aside the exparte orders of eviction and for restitution and the orders of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court vacating the stay are without jurisdiction and null and void and not executable and also for permanent Injunction restraining the tenant from Interfering with the possession of the respondent-landlady in respect of the site on which the premises bearing No. 2-5-693/126 was existing prior to its demolition. Along with the sult the respondent-landlady filed a petition I.A.No. 1927/1974 for temporary Injunction. Originally Interim Injunction was granted while ordering notice and after hearing the respondent (revision-petitioner) It was vacated. As against that order, the respondent landlady preferred C. A. No. 121/1974 before Chief judge. City Civil Court. Along with CM A. she filed I.A.No 1968/1974 for temporary Injunction rest aining the tenart from Intenering with her possession pending disposal of the C M. A. The learned Chief Judge granted interim Injuctlon while ordering notice. The tenan after receiving notice contested the I. A. The learned Chief Judge heard arguments both in the I.A. as well as the C. M. A. The learned Chief Judge after taking into consideration the several contentions raised before him allowed the C M.A., and also I. A. No. 1968/1974 and granted temporary injunction in favour of the Plaintiff restraining the defendant his agents and servants from Interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the land bearing Municipal No. 3-6-693/126 pending disposal of the suit.